Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 13:50:14 +0300 From: Adam Wilson <moxalt@riseup.net> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD sh on Linux? Message-ID: <20160311135014.56c13258@riseup.net> In-Reply-To: <20160310201819.GA5821@stack.nl> References: <BAY182-W443C0171FBBA73A3A2B2FAA2B30@phx.gbl> <8EC0DC6F-FA0D-4B8D-AECE-F1F797EE4D56@dataix.net> <CAOnawYoEpMc=Ad1L5QSdJQR3sT-=RfFwD28gBx0PfSp0zmJxxg@mail.gmail.com> <20160310201819.GA5821@stack.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 21:18:19 +0100 Jilles Tjoelker <jilles@stack.nl> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 09, 2016 at 08:27:05PM +0700, C Bergstr=C3=B6m wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 8:13 PM, Jason Hellenthal > > <jhellenthal@dataix.net> wrote: >=20 > > > On Mar 9, 2016, at 02:06, Brendan Sechter <sgeos@hotmail.com> > > > wrote: >=20 > > > > Is there any reason why FreeBSD sh can't be used on Linux? dash > > > > is not a suitable login shell and bash is GNU. >=20 > You'd need to do some work to make it compile. There is a package > called libbsd which should be helpful. >=20 > The filename completion in FreeBSD sh also uses a FreeBSD-local patch > to libedit. This will be problematic if you want to maintain a > package in a distribution. >=20 > > > It's just the ash(1) shell with a few modifications that's a > > > little more standard than most. Shouldn't be any reason why it > > > can't >=20 > There are quite a few bugfixes, features and performance improvements > that are in FreeBSD sh and not in most other ash variants, such as > UTF-8 support, $'...' to embed control characters and Unicode more > easily, simple command substitutions without fork() and vfork() use. > Therefore, I think the original question is reasonable, if the > request is for a scripting shell (including for system() and make). >=20 > > /* not meaning to be a troll */ >=20 > > If you're going down this route - there's also ksh93 from solaris, > > which may be easy to extract (or maybe has done so already.. not > > sure) in my experience it's that nice balance between bare minimum > > sh and bash. >=20 > ksh93 is in ports. Debian includes the 1993 version of ksh in stable. Not sure if that's the same thing- the package name is ksh, but it conforms to the specification from 1993 as opposed to the 1988 version.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20160311135014.56c13258>